co-domiciles

Cpt Oveur

I had the fish for dinner
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
877
Total Time
time?
I'm looking for anyone out there who is with a company that has multiple airports in the same base such as LGA/JFK, FLL/MIA, LAX/SNA/ONT, IAD/DCA/BWI.

What are the work rules associated, pay credits for transportation between the airports, reserve aspects, parking reimbursements, deadheads, etc.
 

777forever

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Posts
1,535
Total Time
2
Is ASA switching to dual IAD/DCA base in Nov? Would make sense if we're doing 25-30 flights outta DCA
 

JoeMerchant

ASA pilot
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Posts
6,353
Total Time
14000+
Is ASA switching to dual IAD/DCA base in Nov? Would make sense if we're doing 25-30 flights outta DCA

Looks like DCA is all 700 flying and of course IAD is all 200. Dual qual. anyone?
 

zawillif

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Posts
602
Total Time
5k
Looks like DCA is all 700 flying and of course IAD is all 200. Dual qual. anyone?


I said it when I was on the 200, I said it when I was on the 700/900, and now that I'm 45 minutes from IAD and 10 minutes from DCA I'll say it a third time. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
 

Cpt Oveur

I had the fish for dinner
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
877
Total Time
time?
Is ASA switching to dual IAD/DCA base in Nov? Would make sense if we're doing 25-30 flights outta DCA

There is no section of the CBA or LOA that addresses it. However, I know at the legacies it is a reality, and it works well, there is no reason that it is not within the realm of possibility at ASA. Eagle and Comair both rejected a NYC base, instead it's just JFK or JFK and LGA bases, but if the conditions and work rules are there, no reason it can't be cost affective..... right?
 

777forever

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Posts
1,535
Total Time
2
Oh ok I was assuming the DCA flying was 200 flying.700/900 flying is getting even better. DCA flying combined with going back out west to DEN is pretty attractive
 

Data

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Posts
2,731
Total Time
6000+
Like a billion an hour, sure that still wouldn't be enough for ya

Not quite, but if they want me to know the limitations and stuff for another aircraft then I expect to be paid for it. As it is, we are paid more for the larger aircraft, why give that up? For a better schedule? Right. To be downgraded to a 50 and then cancelled (at 50 seat rate)? No thanks. Vacation pay at 50 seat rates? Not interested. Bottom line is, it is a pay cut. I know they're mostly the same plane but there are limitations and procedures that are different that I would be responsible for in a check-ride. If I am responsible for more I expect to be paid more, and no, not by some mystical promise of a better schedule. Anything less is a concession. If they want to pay everyone at a rate commiserate with the increased responsibility, I am all for it.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
Where multiple airports as a domicile have been rejected, the issue has always been who is responsible for getting the crew back to their car at the end of rotation. The company has always wanted to start crew at one airport, return them at another and release them to get back to their car on their own time and dime. Republic rejected that, Comair rejected that, now they are shopping the NYC domicile to someone else in the hope they can pawn the scheme off on them.
 

Gr82Aviate

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Posts
1,180
Total Time
20000
We had a fantastic co-domicile, SAN/CLD. You could bid for either, based on your seniority, and the trips would all start and end from one or the other(no starting in SAN and ending the trip in CLD). Then they decided to waste money on per diem and hotels by closing the base, and doubling the amount of flights in and out of SAN??!!!
 

Av8trix616

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
74
Total Time
.25
[FONT=&quot]Something to think about regarding co-domiciles:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Travel between the two is considered "local in nature" and therefore rest.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr. Johnson:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1992, in which you request[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the agency's interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 121.471(f) and 135.263(c). We apologize that the press of other matters, including safety rulemaking, petitions for exemptions, and requests for interpretations received prior to yours, has prevented us from answering sooner.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In your letter you state that some carriers now assign crewmembers co-domiciles, which may be located in two different cities and can be a considerable distance apart. As an example, you state that some carriers dispatch crewmembers from Washington Dulles International Airport and terminate them at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. You point out that the crewmembers must then travel back to Washington Dulles International Airport, their originating domicile, to retrieve their automobile. Travel time between these co-domiciles may at times exceed one hour.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You ask whether the time spent traveling to the originating[/FONT][FONT=&quot] co-domicile from the terminating co-domicile may be considered rest?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]FAR 121.471(f) states, in pertinent part, that[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that[/FONT][FONT=&quot] an air carrier requires of a flight crewmember and provides to transport the crewmember to an airport at which he is to serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which he was relieved from duty to return to his home station, is not considered part of a rest period.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]FAR 121.471(f) refers to what is commonly called "deadhead transportation", frequently where crewmembers fly as passengers on the air carrier's airplane to a destination where they are to begin service as flight crewmembers, or the reverse. While such crewmembers are being deadheaded they could not at the same time be considered relieved from all duty with the air carrier for the purpose of satisfying FARs 121.471(f) and 135.263(c). This interpretation would apply regardless of whether the crewmembers accomplished the deadhead portion of the trip on a company airplane, an airplane of another carrier, or by ground transportation. This paragraph did not intend to, and does not apply the deadhead transportation rule to transportation from one's home to one's place of business or employment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section 135.263(c) contains an identical provision. Under both[/FONT][FONT=&quot] FARs, three qualifications must be met before the regulation applies. First, the transportation cannot be local in character; second, it must be required of a flight crewmember by the air carrier; and third, it must be provided by the air carrier.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The second and third qualifier is met under your facts. The[/FONT][FONT=&quot] transportation is obviously required of a flight crewmember by the carrier. During a phone conversation on July 1, 1992, you confirmed that the ground transportation was provided by the air carrier from Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Washington Dulles International Airport. The first qualifier however, that the transportation be "not local in character", requires further discussion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The FAA previously has taken the position that "local [/FONT][FONT=&quot]transportation" is travel to and from one's residence to one's[/FONT][FONT=&quot] place of business, or from a hotel or motel to an airport. The time a pilot spends in traveling between his residence and an airport out of which he is to operate, or from that airport to his residence, is time spent in "local transportation" and is counted as part of a rest period. Further, in a previous interpretation request regarding FAR 121.471(f) and 135.263(c), the FAA stated that local transportation includes travel by crewmembers between their residences and co-domicile airports. The co-domicile airports were Los Angeles International and John Wayne Airport, and transit times sometimes exceeded 1.5 hours.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While we recognize that the previous FAA interpretations dealt[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with local transportation between airports and crewmember's residences, we believe it is reasonable to include the travel between co-domicile airports within the meaning of "local in character." Co-domicile airports are generally within a relatively close geographic location to one another. The designation of airports as co-domiciles by air carriers means that flight crewmembers can reasonably be expected to be assigned to duty at either airport. It is reasonable to assume that crewmembers dispatched from one co-domicile airport might terminate at the other. The very nature of co-domicile airports lends itself to such operations. As such, we believe it is reasonable for transportation between co-domicile airports such as Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport to be considered "local in character". Thus, under your facts, ground transportation between co-domicile airports could not be considered deadheading and therefore could be considered rest.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This interpretation has been prepared by Francis C. Heil,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager, and has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service at FAAHeadquarters. We hope it satisfies your request.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Donald P. Byrne [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assistant Chief Counsel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regulations and Enforcement Division[/FONT]
 

701EV

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Posts
760
Total Time
a lot

JoeMerchant

ASA pilot
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Posts
6,353
Total Time
14000+
Do you think the White Dragon could handle such things? I could name about 7 who are even less likely to handle dual qual.

Then they should be fired...If you can't handle both, then you probably shouldn't be flying either....The "White Dragon" prabably shouldn't be flying a 172.....

Corporate pilots fly multiple types. Mesa pilots fly both types. I fly the 50, a C172, a Twin Comanche, and a Bonanza...and I would be fine flying an ATR again....

The biggest problem with dual qual. is some of the silly things we have to commit to memory....Clean that up some and it isn't really that big of a deal.....
 

Oakum_Boy

supercalifragilistic
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Posts
2,405
Total Time
24
This is an idiotic idea. Dual qual, dual base, pbs, anything else you want to throw away?

So you can fly a shiny 700 out of a base that will save you a total of 40 minutes driving per week?? what exactly are you getting in return for all that? Please think about this. Not that it takes too many brain cells to figure out that it would suck. God pilots are moronic.
 

Oakum_Boy

supercalifragilistic
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Posts
2,405
Total Time
24
Exactly the ape-like chest thumping one might expect from merchant. I fly 62 airplane types including the venerable v-tail and if it weren't for those pesky immediate action items and limitations i'd still be part-time prop trash and loving it!!
 

Oakum_Boy

supercalifragilistic
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Posts
2,405
Total Time
24
Close this retarded thread for the love of god.
 
Last edited:
Top